Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38198136›Full record

ReviewJAMA network open2024

Cumulative Update of a Systematic Overview Evaluating Interventions Addressing Polypharmacy.

Michelle S Keller, Nabeel Qureshi, Allison M Mays, Catherine A Sarkisian, Joshua M Pevnick

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Discharge instruction comprehension by older adults in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Michelle S KellerDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Nabeel QureshiDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Allison M MaysSection of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Catherine A SarkisianDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.
Joshua M PevnickDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.

Funding

Midcareer Award in Patient-Oriented Community-Academic Partnered Aging ResearchK24AG047899 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI SARKISIAN, CATHERINE A · 2014 to 2025
$2.0M
Developing and Testing a Population Health Approach to Deprescribing and Optimizing Medications in Older AdultsK01AG076865 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Michelle Sophie Keller · 2022 to 2026
$618k
NIA NIH HHS K01 AG076865NIA NIH HHS K24 AG047899
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Polypharmacy is associated with mortality, falls, hospitalizations, and functional and cognitive decline. The study of polypharmacy-related interventions has increased substantially, prompting the need for an updated, more focused systematic overview. Objective: To systematically evaluate and summarize evidence across multiple systematic reviews (SRs) examining interventions addressing polypharmacy. Evidence Review: A search was conducted of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects for articles published from January 2017-October 2022, as well as those identified in a previous overview (January 2004-February 2017). Systematic reviews were included regardless of study design, setting, or outcome. The evidence was summarized by 4 categories: (1) medication-related process outcomes (eg, potentially inappropriate medication [PIM] and potential prescribing omission reductions), (2) clinical and functional outcomes, (3) health care use and economic outcomes, and (4) acceptability of the intervention. Findings: Fourteen SRs were identified (3 from the previous overview), 7 of which included meta-analyses, representing 179 unique published studies. Nine SRs examined medication-related process outcomes (low to very low evidence quality). Systematic reviews using pooled analyses found significant reductions in the number of PIMs, potential prescribing omissions, and total number of medications, and improvements in medication appropriateness. Twelve SRs examined clinical and functional outcomes (very low to moderate evidence quality). Five SRs examined mortality; all mortality meta-analyses were null, but studies with longer follow-up periods found greater reductions in mortality. Five SRs examined falls incidence; results were predominantly null save for a meta-analysis in which PIMs were discontinued. Of the 8 SRs examining quality of life, most (7) found predominantly null effects. Ten SRs examined hospitalizations and readmissions (very low to moderate evidence quality) and 4 examined emergency department visits (very low to low evidence quality). One SR found significant reductions in hospitalizations and readmissions among higher-intensity medication reviews with face-to-face patient components. Another meta-analysis found a null effect. Of the 7 SRs without meta-analyses for hospitalizations and readmissions, all had predominantly null results. Two of 4 SRs found reductions in emergency department visits. Two SRs examined acceptability (very low evidence quality), finding wide variation in the adoption of polypharmacy-related interventions. Conclusions and Relevance: This updated systematic overview noted little evidence of an association between polypharmacy-related interventions and reduced important clinical and health care use outcomes. More evidence is needed regarding which interventions are most useful and which populations would benefit most.

Indexed as

COVID-19PolypharmacyHumansQuality of LifeSystematic Reviews as TopicSystemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome

Identifiers

PMID38198136
PMCPMC10782233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.